> I'm sick of tech companies giving the only way to decline their preferred approach as "maybe later".
I've seen this rehashed through the years. Having worked at 4 different tech companies now, I think I can reconstruct why this happens.
UX: "Okay team, here's the opt-in dialog box."
PM: "Wait, the buttons say 'Yes' and 'No.' We don't want people to click 'No' because my perf and promo is tied to the number of people who click 'Yes.' Look, what if they want to change their minds later? Or what if they want to just think about it and then make a decision to enable my team's feature tomorrow? Are we just going to let those numbers slip by?"
UX: "Uh, well, I suppose we could add a third button, 'Maybe later.'"
PM: "THREE buttons?? Are you kidding me? That's too many. Have you even read the book Essentialism, bro? What if they accidentally click 'No' when they really want to just decide later? Or what if we change the feature enough that we can justify prompting them again with the updated version of the feature? If they clicked 'No' then they might feel that we're harassing them or something with another prompt later on."
UX: "Well, maybe we should err on the side of respecting the user's wishes. Sure, we might give up some of the engagement numbers..."
PM: "NNNGNNGGGHHPHHHTHTTTTHHHHHHHH WHAAAAAT!?!? MY BONUUUUUUS"
UX: "Okay okay okay, how about if we just make the 'No' and 'Maybe later?'"
PM: "Hmmm, that's sort of suggestive too. It might make someone who's thinking 'No' to start thinking 'Maybe later' because that's what they read. I like it. And can we make the 'Yes' sound a little less noncommittal while we're at it? Make it a little easier to click on? Maybe something chirpy and agreeable, like 'Sure!' People love being agreeable, don't they? Don't you?"
I've seen this rehashed through the years. Having worked at 4 different tech companies now, I think I can reconstruct why this happens.
UX: "Okay team, here's the opt-in dialog box."
PM: "Wait, the buttons say 'Yes' and 'No.' We don't want people to click 'No' because my perf and promo is tied to the number of people who click 'Yes.' Look, what if they want to change their minds later? Or what if they want to just think about it and then make a decision to enable my team's feature tomorrow? Are we just going to let those numbers slip by?"
UX: "Uh, well, I suppose we could add a third button, 'Maybe later.'"
PM: "THREE buttons?? Are you kidding me? That's too many. Have you even read the book Essentialism, bro? What if they accidentally click 'No' when they really want to just decide later? Or what if we change the feature enough that we can justify prompting them again with the updated version of the feature? If they clicked 'No' then they might feel that we're harassing them or something with another prompt later on."
UX: "Well, maybe we should err on the side of respecting the user's wishes. Sure, we might give up some of the engagement numbers..."
PM: "NNNGNNGGGHHPHHHTHTTTTHHHHHHHH WHAAAAAT!?!? MY BONUUUUUUS"
UX: "Okay okay okay, how about if we just make the 'No' and 'Maybe later?'"
PM: "Hmmm, that's sort of suggestive too. It might make someone who's thinking 'No' to start thinking 'Maybe later' because that's what they read. I like it. And can we make the 'Yes' sound a little less noncommittal while we're at it? Make it a little easier to click on? Maybe something chirpy and agreeable, like 'Sure!' People love being agreeable, don't they? Don't you?"